Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation (4)
- Takings Clause (4)
- Compensation (3)
- Fifth Amendment (3)
- IOLTA programs (3)
-
- Interest on Lawyer Trust Account programs (3)
- Owners (3)
- Private property (3)
- Property (3)
- Takings (3)
- United States Supreme Court (3)
- Efficiency (2)
- Fairness (2)
- Justice (2)
- Property law (2)
- Severance (2)
- Anticommon property (1)
- Anticommons property (1)
- Boundaries (1)
- Boundary principle (1)
- City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd (1)
- Common property (1)
- Commons (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Exaction Fees (1)
- Fragmentation (1)
- Harvard Law Review (1)
- History (1)
- Hodel v. Irving (1)
- Intellectual property (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Negotiated Development Denial Meets People's Court: Del Monte Dunes Brings New Wildcards To Exactions Law, Jonathan M. Davidson, Ronald H. Rosenberg, Michael C. Spata
Negotiated Development Denial Meets People's Court: Del Monte Dunes Brings New Wildcards To Exactions Law, Jonathan M. Davidson, Ronald H. Rosenberg, Michael C. Spata
Faculty Publications
The United States Supreme Court Answered "YES" to the $1.45 million over exaction question for 1999. In City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd., a unanimous court extended the scope of compensatory takings review beyond land dedication conditions into the realm of regulatory denial. Justice Kennedy's opinion vitalized the "legitimate state interests" test from Agins v. City of Tiburon to sustain an inverse condemnation conclusion and damage award to the frustrated developer. A majority of the court also concurred that the trial court may delegate this takings conclusion to the jury under federal civil rights law. The …
Making Something Out Of Nothing: The Law Of Takings And Phillips V. Washington Legal Foundation, Michael A. Heller, James E. Krier
Making Something Out Of Nothing: The Law Of Takings And Phillips V. Washington Legal Foundation, Michael A. Heller, James E. Krier
Articles
Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation held that interest on principal amounts deposited into IOLTA accounts is the property of the various clients who handed over the money but expressed no view as to whether the Texas IOLTA program worked a taking, or, if it did, whether any compensation was due. The debates among the justices about the meaning of private property, argued in terms of contextual and conceptual severance, are unlikely to prove fruitful. We elaborate a better approach in terms of the underlying purposes of just compensation. We conclude that efficiency and justice are best served by uncoupling matters …
The Boundaries Of Private Property, Michael A. Heller
The Boundaries Of Private Property, Michael A. Heller
Faculty Scholarship
If your house and fields are worth more separately, divide them; if you want to leave a ring to your child now and grandchild later, split the ownership in a trust. The American law of property encourages owners to subdivide resources freely. Hidden within the law, however, is a boundary principle that limits the right to subdivide private property into wasteful fragments. While people often create wealth when they break up and recombine property in novel ways, owners may make mistakes, or their self-interest may clash with social welfare. Property law responds with diverse doctrines that prevent and abolish excessive …
Deterrence And Distribution In The Law Of Takings, Michael A. Heller, James E. Krier
Deterrence And Distribution In The Law Of Takings, Michael A. Heller, James E. Krier
Articles
Supreme Court decisions over the last three-quarters of a century have turned the words of the Takings Clause into a secret code that only a momentary majority of the Court is able to understand. The Justices faithfully moor their opinions to the particular terms of the Fifth Amendment, but only by stretching the text beyond recognition. A better approach is to consider the purposes of the Takings Clause, efficiency and justice, and go anew from there. Such a method reveals that in some cases there are good reasons to require payment by the government when it regulates property, but not …
The Boundaries Of Private Property, Michael A. Heller
The Boundaries Of Private Property, Michael A. Heller
Articles
If your house and fields are worth more separately, divide them; if you want to leave a ring to your child now and grandchild later, split the ownership in a trust. The American law of property encourages owners to subdivide resources freely. Hidden within the law, however, is a boundary principle that limits the right to subdivide private property into wasteful fragments. While people often create wealth when they break up and recombine property in novel ways, owners may make mistakes, or their self-interest may clash with social welfare. Property law responds with diverse doctrines that prevent and abolish excessive …
Deterrence And Distribution In The Law Of Takings, Michael A. Heller, James E. Krier
Deterrence And Distribution In The Law Of Takings, Michael A. Heller, James E. Krier
Faculty Scholarship
Supreme Court decisions over the last three-quarters of a century have turned the words of the Takings Clause into a secret code that only a momentary majority of the Court is able to understand. The Justices faithfully moor their opinions to the particular terms of the Fifth Amendment, but only by stretching the text beyond recognition. A better approach is to consider the purposes of the Takings Clause, efficiency and justice, and go anew from there. Such a method reveals that in some cases there are good reasons to require payment by the government when it regulates property, but not …